Meghalaya High Court
Crl.M.C./93/2025 of STIAT SUN Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA on 9 September 2025
No. 02 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Crl.M.C. No. 93 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 Shri. Stiat Sun, S/o (Late) N. Kurbah, R/o Marbisu Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya …..Petitioner -VERSUS- State of Meghalaya Through the Commissioner & Secretary
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Serial No. 02 Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
Crl.M.C. No. 93 of 2025
Date of Decision: 09.09.2025
Shri. Stiat Sun, S/o (Late) N. Kurbah, R/o Marbisu Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya
…..Petitioner
-VERSUS-
State of Meghalaya Through the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Department of Home (Police), Civil Secretariat, Shillong, Meghalaya.
…..Respondent
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. Y. Shylla, Adv. Ms. A.D. Syiem, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl. P.P Ms. I. Lyngwa, GA Mr. A.M. Pala, GA
ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Ms. Y. Shylla, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that an appeal is contemplated to be filed against the impugned judgment and sentence dated 24.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong in Special POCSO Case No. 54 of 2017. However, while preferring the related appeal, a delay of 376 days has occurred on the ground that the petitioner/convict is not fully aware of the consequences or the procedure of law as far as appeal is concerned due to illiteracy. It is prayed that the period of delay may be condoned and the appeal be brought on board.
Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, learned Addl. P.P has however expressed his objection to the application filed on the ground that it could not be said that the petitioner/convict is not aware of his right as the same has been informed to him at the time when the sentence was passed.
This Court has given due consideration to the submission made and has noted that in a case such as this, the merits of the appeal have to be looked into considering it involves the life and liberty of an individual.
Accordingly, we find that sufficient cause has been made for filing of the said condonation application. The delay of 376 days in filing the related appeal is hereby condoned.
The Registry is directed to diarize the appeal and list the same for admission after 1(one) week.
Petition disposed of.
(B. Bhattacharjee) (W. Diengdoh)
Judge Judge